The defensive philosophy for the 2008 Horns

K

kchorn

250+ Posts
This may be the most intriguing "off-season" yet during the UT coaching tenure of Mack Brown. In some ways, we have almost no idea what we'll see on the football field with the 2008 Horns.

For example, the basic assumption is that the Horns' defense will be different than last year, and that certainly would appear to be likely with Will Muschamp in charge ... but where will the differences be most evident?

The heart of the matter arguably is "scoring defense" ... and it is interesting to look at the Horns' national rankings in that department so far in this millennium:

2000 - No. 11 (17.9 points allowed per game).
2001 - No. 3 (13.7 points)
2002 - No. 8 (16.3)
2003 - No. 32 (21.5)

2004 - No. 18 (17.9)

2005 - No. 8 (16.4)
2006 - No. 26 (18.3)

2007 - No. 45 (25.3)

Other than the indication that Bull Reese may be one of the most underrated defensive coaches in UT football history (and Greg Robinson may be one of the most overrated in that department), it seems clear, imo, that the 2008 Horns have considerable room for improvement in the "scoring defense" department (as compared to last season) ... and, hopefully, we'll see the Texas defense return to its normal proficiency in that area.

Stopping the run arguably is the starting point for an effective defense, and the demise of Bull Reese appears to be reflected by the Horns' deterioration in the "rushing defense" category ... Texas was No. 11 nationally in that department ("rushing defense") in 2000 and No. 6 in 2001 ... but we fell off to No. 47 in 2002 and then dropped to No. 58 in 2003. Interestingly, the Horns were in the national Top-Ten in "pass defense" in both the 2002 and 2003 seasons.

Then Robinson becomes the new DC, and we jump back up to No. 16 nationally in rushing defense ... but the 2004 Horns also drop from No. 9 (with Reese in 2003) to No. 58 (with Robinson in 2004) in pass defense. And, of course, although we improved our overall rushing-defense record under Robinson ... that aspect of the Horns' defense failed utterly in the 2004 RRS.

When Chizik arrives, he apparently is given "carte blanche" by Mack ... and, interestingly, Chizik appears to go for a "balanced" defense that can be effective vs. the run or the pass, as necessary ... and the 2005 Horns actually drop in run defense from the year before to No. 33 nationally, but improve dramatically in pass defense and finish No. 8 nationally in that category.

In 2006, Mack reportedly tells Chizik to focus on stopping the run ... and we do exactly that ... yielding only 61.2 yards per game (by far our best record in this millennium) and finishing the season ranked No. 3 nationally in the "rushing defense" category. Unfortunately (for Chizik and the Horns), the Texas pass defense disappears in the process ... and we drop all the way to No. 99 nationally in that department (despite having what appears, in retrospect, to be considerable player talent in the secondary -- including the 2006 "Thorpe Award" winner). So, how did Chizik go from coaching the No. 8 pass defense in the Country in 2005 to coaching the No. 99 pass defense in the Country in 2006?

Then, in 2007, we have what arguably is an amazingly ironic situation with Texas finishing the season ranked an exemplary No. 6 nationally in "rushing defense" ... but, with our "secondary coach" serving as our DC, the Horns drop all the way to No. 109 in pass defense under Duane Akina (arguably the top secondary coach in the Conference, if not the Country).

What's going on here? And how will Will Muschamp deal with the "priorities" for the 2008 Horns' defense?

It will be interesting to see what happens this Fall.

Hook 'em.
cow.gif
 
Well I hope the Texas defense improves there is room for it to. However Muschamp is working with a short stick in regards to number of players he has.
 
A lot of the story isn't told by numbers. Back when Reese was DC, when we played a team like KSU, we folded. They would hit us with their best shot and we would back down. When Robinson came, our attitude as a team changed. We layed people out and we were the ones giving the hard shots. That attitude continued through Chizik's first year.
 
The last thread of yours had many errors and this one is flawed from the beginning.

It starts off by talking about what we might get/expect in this year's defense but quickly turns into a bashing of past defensive philosophies/coaches. Almost seems like a post that would have come up near end of last year's regular season when our defense was playing like **** and everyone was looking around for the next DC.....well now we have it so why are you looking back again?

The premise that we should evaluate the defense based solely on the statistical category of scoring defense is also flawed. In 05 we beat the hell out of teams on the offensive side of the ball. This certainly translated to a positive impact in the total defense and scoring defense category. Defense often feeds off of offense. When the offense controls the momentum of the game it can lead to control on the defensive side as well.

A stat that you don't see in scoring defense is turnover differential. We need a defense this year that can force more TO's as well as an offense that does not turn the ball over as much...ala Charle's fumbles and Colt's INT's. If we do these 2 things I think our scoring defense improves as well.

Thus there are at least 2 things that I have pointed out (scoring offense and turnover differential) that can affect the scoring defense statistic and aren't completely in the hands of the defense...or the defensive coordinator.

Also 06 the UT team looked pretty damned good with a freshman QB until that QB went down early against K-state for the 1st of 2 consecutive losses that have made a lasting impression on that season. You can't blame that injury and it's effect on the psyche of the team and the offense on the defense or the defensive coordinator.

The thing I see changing with Coach Muschamp in is the attitude. Similar to when Coach Robinson 1st arrived and they ran that bull ring drill to make them tougher. Coach Muschamp has brought the hard hat and accountability to the team. Everyone is out there fighting for a spot and a chance to prove themselves. I think regardless of the experience or depth at certain positions that this defense will automatically be improved in many aspects b/c of this.
 
KC it is good to see you back after your HF sabbatical. Like many of our fans, I am hungry for some big changes and improvement on D. I am very optimistic about Coach Muschamp and the Horn Defense this fall. The DL is thin on numbers & experience while there is a lot of youth among the DB's. It seems to me he may have the D switch to a 3-4 due to limited DT depth and good depth at DE & LB - we will see.

However, here is what I am confident about this new coach:

He will get the absolute best out of the players he has
He will start the 11 best players.
He will make all his players accountable to him and each other.
He will help foster & build a nasty attitude that a defense needs
He will make them hit and hit hard until the whistle blows
He will prepare them to win ballgames.
He will lead and motivate with great energy & enthusiasm.
He will chew serious *** when a player f's up and will praise when he does well
He will make the word BOOM! a household word spoken every week by Horn Fans.

This D will be young and may make some mistakes especially early in the season while they break in a new formations, techniques & schemes, but I think we are all in for a pleasant surprise
hookem.gif
 
I agree that Reese was underrated, but I disagree that Robinson was overrated. He had some bad games - allowing 37 to Michigan wasn't too impressive (although our special teams gets a ton of the blame for that). But he also held A&M's offense to a single score in 2004 in a game in which our offense never really got in gear, and we shut them out in the 2nd half and recorded 8 sacks.

Our running defense didn't really "fail miserably" against OU either. Even a herculean effort would have had a hell of a difficult time shutting down both the passing game and the running game - what with the returning Heisman trophy winner and one of the best freshman running backs in NCAA history. Robinson and co. decided that it'd be best to pick one aspect of the OU offense and concentrate primarily on stopping it, and then reasoned better to let the freshman try to beat us than to let the Heisman QB try to beat us. We absolutely shut down Jason White and OU scored a scant 12 points. Our defensive strategy worked. If you'd told me beforehand that we'd hold OU to 12 points I'd have been pumped and I would have taken it. Not Greg's fault that we fumbled 3 times, that we twice got sacked out of FG range on 3rd down, or that Nate Jones dropped a TD pass.
 
Kchorn hates Mack brown and Greg Davis and wants them fired. Greg threw too many interceptions in the CU champ game, and Mack missed all his tackles of Quentin Griffin. Clearly they are the cause of the fall of Western Civilization. His statistics are irrefutable. Just ask him. Your comments will be called "interesting".
 
Appreciate the responses and the help with this discussion.

(1) Statalyzer - your points are well-taken that the Horns' defense held OU to 12 points in the 2004 RRS, and also that Greg Robinson seemed to bring a new energy to the Horns' defense. Agree on both counts.

Still, the net effect of our "rushing defense" in the 2004 RRS was particularly negative, imo, not only because the Horns' defense gave up 301 rushing yards (and 5.8 yards-per-carry) to the Sooners in the game ... but also because the success of the OU running game enabled the Sooners to control the clock in the 2004 RRS -- to the extent that OU maintained possession of the football for 36:02 of the game (compared to 23.58 for the Horns).

That is one of the key advantages of having a strong running game (and no Mack-coached Texas team or Stoops-coached Oklahoma team, as you know, ever has won the RRS when being out-rushed by its opponent) ... and, conversely, the same factor underscores the importance of having a strong run defense.

The question appears to be how Will Muschamp can manage the priorities of the 2008 Horns to create a defense that is effective against "both" the run and and the pass.

(2) gkp - while my own position is supportive of Mack Brown (and most of us in the Horns' camp, myself included, always will appreciate what Mack has done to revitalize the Horns' football program), you are correct that, imo, it is fair to ask why GD has not -- in ten years -- improved the effectiveness of the Horns' soft and predictable "one-man" running game.

However, the latter issue (regarding our running game) does not involve "hating" anyone, including Greg Davis, and it also is not the subject of this thread.

(3) hornpharmd - the purpose of the initial post on this thread is to discuss the defensive philosophy for the 2008 Horns.

The fact that previous DCs at Texas (during Mack's coaching tenure) may have struggled in some seasons (conversely, this arguably was not a problem for the Horns' defense in the 2001 and 2005 seasons) to balance the need to field a defense that can "both" defend against the run effectively and defend against the pass successfully ... does not, imo, constitute by any logical standard an effort to "bash" those coaching efforts.

In fact, the Horns' Defensive Coordinators (during Mack's coaching tenure at UT) very arguably have been more effective in accomplishing their tasks than our one and only Offensive Coordinator.

Regardless, the question here is how you believe Will Muschamp will deal with the issue of creating an effective overall defense (against both the pass and the run) for the 2008 Horns. In that regard, all of us in the Horns' camp hope that he succeeds.

(4) WorsterMan - thanks for the support and the good thoughts. Hope all is going well.

Recently, came across an article in which Darrell's Defensive Coordinator (the legendary Mike Campbell) suggested that Steve Worster was the best-ever football player at Texas (up to that point) -- even including Tommy Nobis (Mike didn't mention Bobby Layne).

That is an interesting observation, although it does not relate directly to this discussion, and might be of note the next time we have a topic on the Horns' all-time best football players.

Thanks again for your help with this discussion -- the points you have made, imo, are right on target.

Hook 'em.
cow.gif
 
Our time of possession would've looked a little better in that OU game if our offense had managed a first down or two. We looked crippled offensively that entire game. I can't blame Greg Robinson for our 86 yards of passing offense that day. To ask anything more of our defense than limiting OU to 12 points with that potent offense is ridiculous. It sure beat the **** out of watching that midget gouge us for 8 yards a pop and 70 points out of the same ******* shotgun draw play when Bull Reese insisted on blitzing into it every time.
 
Mitch and Statalyzer - your point is well-taken.

The Horns' offense was hamstrung (by GD, imo) in the 2004 RRS ... and just two weeks later (after the Missouri game), Mack sat down with Greg and Vince to review the situation. What ensued was the "coaching epiphany" to which Mack subsequently referred on national television -- when he noted that the decision was made to "turn Vince loose" and let him be his naturally aggressive self as our QB.

From there, the Horns started throwing the football North-South, and Vince started running with his natural abandon (instead of dropping to the ground at the sight of a tackler, as was the case in the 2004 RRS -- in other words, he went back to running like he did in the 2003 RRS) ... and the Horns never lost another football game with Vince at QB ... averaging almost 50 points a game for the last year and a-half of his UT football career ... while winning two BCS games, a Big-12 Conference title and an MNC.

As for the Bull Reese defense, as compared to that of Greg Robinson, every defensive stat in the Horns' 2001 season was better than any in Robison's 2004 season. And the 2001 Horns held Oklahoma's offense to just 7 points.

Of course, our GD offense managed to score only 3 points in the 2001 RRS ... while rushing for a mere 27 yards on 25 carries (1.1 ypc) ...

... and Greg Davis is still here.

So, Will Muschamp might wish to plan on shutting out the Sooners in the 2008 RRS.

Hook 'em.
cow.gif
 
I agree. The defense folded against good opponents back then. And Greg Davis's offense was yes predictable. I do think that Vince opened things up and that his offense has changed since then. I think one needs to get over these years and focus on what has happened since and what is happening now....and then this thread wouldn't exist.

0-2.
 
hornpharmd - that is an interesting observation regarding the relative unimportance (in your view) of the Horns' past football history during Mack Brown's coaching tenure at Texas.

You are correct that the Horns' soft and predictable offense under GD changed when we had Vince ... but the problem is that we have reverted to the same approach (with our soft and predictable "one-man" running game) since Vince left ... at least, for example, in our three losses last year to Kansas State, Oklahoma and A&M.

So, if we do as you propose and consider only the seasons since Vince departed the premises, the combination of the Horns' problems "both" defensively and offensively would appear to mirror the same problems we encountered -- on both sides of the line of scrimmage -- before Vince.

And now that point would appear to be accentuated by the remarkable recruiting decision the Horns have made this year to treat an outstanding "passing QB" prospect differently than an outstanding "dual-threat QB" prospect ... instead of simply offering both of them the same opportunity to compete at The University of Texas for playing time at QB. As a result, the road apparently is paved, albeit with good intentions, for Texas to travel even further away from the Vince approach (in our 2005 MNC season) than already has been the case with Colt McCoy serving as the Horns' quarterback.

Somehow, Will Muschamp apparently is expected (at least by some folks in our camp) to help Colt McCoy and Garrett Gilbert overcome the running-game deficiencies of our "pass-first" (Tech-style) offense by winning our key games on defense ... even though that same approach already failed when the Horns had the No. 1 defense in the Country under Bull Reese.

Whatever, looking at the bright side, at least Muschamp (and maybe Major Applewhite on offense, if he understands -- from his days of running for his life as a "passing QB" at Texas -- the running-game problem that has been endemic to offenses coached by GD at both Texas and North Carolina) can attempt to restore that the Horns' toughness and football speed that were our hallmarks during the Vince era.

The KState players talked openly last year (before and after playing Texas) about how their coaches had told them that the Wildcats could out-tough and out-run the Horns, who no longer had the toughness and football speed that helped Texas win with Vince. And A&M was openly laughing at the Texas offense (and our QB) before we played the Aggies in College Station ... and, of course, our offense then proceeded to score 3 points on its own initiative in the first three and a-half quarters of that game.

Maybe Will Muschamp and Major Applewhite can help us turn around those issues (related to toughness and football speed) in the Horns' 2008 football season..

It will be interesting, in that regard, to see what happens in Spring Practice ... and later this Fall.

Hook 'em.
cow.gif
 
I don't think it is unimportant. But if the title of the thread is 2008 Horns defensive philosophy then we should be talking more about the 2008 horns defense instead of the past defenses and coaches which was 90% of your original post. And as I pointed out the logic of scoring defense is flawed in many areas.

Now we're not really talking about offense here so let's leave that to the side. Against most of the last post here talks about the offense, the QB's, the running game, etc.

Simply put the jist I am getting from your last 2 threads are just very negative in regards to the state of the UT football program, which I just don't agree with. I have tried to show you the talent and depth that is upcoming in the freshman and sophomore classes that will peak in 2009 and 2010. You add in a top new DC and there is a receipe for some good years ahead, especially on defense. Both offensively and defensively the team has been rebuilding since start of 07 season. 06 season had a RS frosh at QB and it overachieved in my mind and would have achieved more if Colt hadn't gotten injured. I just don't see this team performing like the 01-02 teams that many (including yourself) are so consumed with. Those teams had amazing talent and were each season very close to going to the big game or going all the way. But to do that there was always another big game they couldn't get over to get there....In 01 it was OU and then Colorado, in 02 it was OU again and then Tech. 03 and 04 saw the transition to the Vince years and again it was rebuilding similar to 06 and 07 and you just have to live with those years. The defensive toughness did pick up in 04 and 05 and then fell back off. I think this year there are signs that indicate this should pick up again in 08 and hopefully last for at least a few more years. If that happens and the talent and depth that I mentioned previously hits the field and peaks in the next 3 seasons, then man you will have a very good defense and overall team to watch. Why worry so much?

If you want to have the glass half empty approach that is a choice, but gotta get more of the facts right 1st. We just all need to sit back and enjoy the next few years and realize that yes there will be a few setbacks and hurdles along the way but overall we should see our team get a real shot at winning another championship.
 
hornpharmd - appreciate your observations, which are impressive in their candor and content.

It is not difficult, imo, to understand and respect your point ... even if we may not agree in every respect. In that regard, it is ironic that before Vince (and through the first two years of the VY era), the viewpoints I expressed in this forum drew criticism from some posters for being too positive ... and now it's vice-versa.

Perhaps the following will help to explain that reversal in perception.

Before Vince, my view was that the UT football coaching staff (under Mack) could and would modify our offense to help our football program succeed. They ended up doing that with Vince, and near the end of VY's football career with the Horns, the new offensive system was so effective that (and some of us posted to this effect) it was apparent the Horns would beat USC in the Rose Bowl at the end of our 2005 football season.

At that point, it was my view that Mack & Greg would realize (as anyone would) that the "second" viable running threat which Vince (a dual-threat QB) created in the Texas running game had transformed the Horns into a football team that could both run and pass the football effectively against any opponent ... including quality opponents in title games. My guess was that Mack would continue to recruit the best dual-threat QBs we could find in the State of Texas, and Mack said (back then) that his plan henceforth would be to recruit only those QB prospects who had sufficient mobility to make plays with their feet, as well as their passing arms. The presumption was that he meant making plays running the football against any of our opponents, including KState, Oklahoma and A&M.

When Colt McCoy became the Horns' starting QB in the 2006 season and almost totally dominated the playing time at quarterback for Texas that year, the rationale appeared to be that neither Sherrod Harris nor Jevan Snead could help the Horns win football games at QB. So even though the Horns had no viable QB depth, we redshirted Harris, seldom played Snead (until forced to do so in the KState game), and then Jevan transferred.

In the 2007 season, we had the injury to Harris, but also had John Chiles in for Spring Practice and the summer workouts ... and it appeared that Chiles could help provide a second viable running threat for the 2007 Horns. He did accomplish that objective last season, but only in rare appearances with our reserves ... until he was permitted to play with the Horns' first-team offense (for the first time) on two full possessions in the 2007 Holiday Bowl ... and Texas scored two TDs on those two possessions, generating 14 points in 1 minute and 37 seconds of playing time, while averaging 15 yards-per-play.

Since then, we've heard some of the usual rumors about moving John Chiles to WR (the same way we used to talk about Vince), which -- if it happened -- would put Chiles in a position where he arguably would be lucky to touch the football four times a game.

Then, essentially, we appear to have told Russell Shepard that he was welcome to come to Texas, particularly if he wished to be moved to WR (where he would be lucky to touch the football four times a game for the Horns). Shepard, who arguably is the top dual-threat QB prospect in Texas (if not the nation) in the 2009 recruiting class, reportedly told us that he would prefer to play QB ... and, since then, he has committed to LSU, which apparently offered him that opportunity on the same basis as their other QB candidates.

As a result, Texas now appears (with Mack & Greg) to be right back where we started -- before Vince -- with "passing QBs" who do not run the football on designed running plays vs. quality opponents in title games ... and the results for our football teams (since Vince) appear to mirror what we saw before Vince.

And, once again, we appear to be blaming the Defensive Coordinator of the Day for our offensive problems ... even though the Horns' pattern of failure in key games with our soft and predictable "one-man" running game under GD has been the same for a decade.

In that regard, you suggest that the Horns will be tough in 2009, which seems to be an indication that you may not be expecting a Big-12 Conference football title in 2008. But last year at this time, when some of us suggested that John Chiles (as a true freshman, like Tim Tebow for Florida's 2006 MNC team) could help our running game as a backup QB ... we were told that Colt needed to monopolize the QB playing time again in 2007, so that he and Texas would be ready to win a Conference title in 2008. Now, we appear to be doing the "next year" theme again as we head into Colt's third season as our starting QB ...

... and, since we did not choose to recruit Russell Shepard as a QB prospect -- at least not on the same basis that we did Garrett Gilbert -- it appears (unless John Chiles is given a substantive opportunity, as our backup QB, to see the football field this Fall with our first-team offense ... and can compete, on the merits, with Colt and Garrett) that Gilbert is the very likely possibility to follow Colt as our starting QB in the 2010-2013 seasons.

If so, that could mean that despite the fact that we're working to improve our defense with our fifth (5th) Defensive Coordinator during Mack's coaching tenure at Texas -- an average of a new DC every two years -- we apparently intend to continue our "passing QB" strategy (while doing nothing to improve our running-game scheme) for the foreseeable future.

If our track record with that offensive strategy holds to form, that would appear to mean that Texas may be winning no Conference football titles or participating in any BCS-level postseason games for the foreseeable future ...

... although, by the end of the 2013 football season, we may be hiring our eighth (8th) Defensive Coordinator.

And, as noted in the initial post on this thread, it appears not to matter how well those DCs handle their job at Texas -- they still may end up serving as cannon fodder to direct the attention of our fan base away from the annual evaporation (when all the chips are on the table) of our one-man running game.

Maybe Will Muschamp will the exception to the rule, and we all hope that is the case ... but why not fix the Horns' running game and let our offense help the Texas defense succeed ... instead of, for example, fielding an offense that scores only 3 points on its own initiative in the first three and a-half quarters of the A&M game, or rushes for just 61 yards (2.1 ypc) vs. Oklahoma?

It is a team sport.

Hook 'em.
cow.gif
 
Addendum:

It seems possible (given some of the observations in our recent discussions of these issues) that it may be appropriate to make the following point regarding the Horns' running-game problem.

The primary reason for the references, on my part, to using dual-threat QBs (e.g., Vince Young, John Chiles and Russell Shepard) to solve the running-game problem under GD is because (imo) Greg Davis has yet to show -- in his entire intercollegiate coaching career spanning three decades -- any inclination to attempt to modify his soft and predictable "one-man" running-game scheme when he utilizes a "passing QB" in his basic offensive set.

The only time, to my knowledge, in GD's coaching career in which he has utilized "two" viable running threats in an offensive set was during the period in which Vince Young was the Horns' starting quarterback. That track record arguably would be a logical indication that the only way we reasonably can expect to see any substantive misdirection in the Horns' running game (with GD as our Offensive Coordinator) is by utilizing a dual-threat QB.

As Selvin Young put it: "We won (in the Horns' 2005 MNC season) because opposing defenses could not stop two running threats."

It should be noted, however, that other successful major-college football teams (e.g., Florida, Oklahoma and USC) have created substantive misdirection in their running games, even with "passing QBs" as starters, by utilizing various methods: e.g., backup QBs who could run with the football effectively; special running plays devised, as a surprise tactic, for a specific game to exploit perceived weaknesses in a particular opponent's defense; shifting formations, blocking assignments and snap counts in a pattern inconsistent with prior contests; using the "slotback" (e.g., Percy Harvin and Reggie Bush) not only as a WR, but also as a RB -- not just on reverse plays, but also on other designed running plays that can be implemented between the tackles; and using a FB/H-back who actually carries and catches the football on occasion, rather than serving solely as a totally predictable blocking cipher.

It certainly is not impossible (in fact, it's not even difficult) for The University of Texas football program to utilize creative running-game schemes that incorporate a "second" viable running threat -- even in offensive sets that employ a "passing QB".

It's just a matter of creative, rather than predictable, coaching ...

... and Major Applewhite, if he focuses on the actual "schemes" in our running game (rather than just talking about "turnovers"), could create a whole new ballgame for the Horns on the ground in the 2008 football season.

In that regard, there are rumors that Cody Johnson has been seen in Spring practice lining up at FB and running with the football (for a touchdown).

And that is why hope springs eternal in the Horns' camp -- even for those of us with a touch of cynicism from what we've observed with GD to this point. The combination of Will Muschamp firing up our defense, and Major giving us some substantive misdirection in our running game (even with a "passing QB") could be formidable.

It will be interesting to see what happens this Fall.

Hook 'em.
cow.gif
 
Reese definitely had a good defensive philosophy vs. the opponents he faced at LSU and later at Texas, culminating in 2001. But he was unable to adjust to the coming trend of spread offenses, and needed to be replaced. Getting torched by Tech for 600 yards in 2002, then 550+ the next year by OU and Tech showed that.

I fail to see what the recruitment of, or supposed failure to recruit, Russell Shepard has to do with the 2008 defensive philosophy. Or the condemnation of a high school kid who has yet to set foot on campus, for his inability to win because he is a "passing" quarterback.

To me the biggest question about the upcoming season's defensive play will be the use of the safeties. Chizik had his safeties help shut down the running game, which caused them to bite on play-action too often. Duane was hampered with a lack of talent in many ways, but the lack of coverage by the safeties cost the team time and again. I will be most interested to see which of the often highly praised kids in the secondary get the starting nods, and how they are utilized- stopping the run, deep zone, slot coverage, etc. It's not so much the scheme sometimes, but how well the kids can execute. I hope Muschamp's philosophy will get the right kids in the right place. Personally, I would like to see a strong safety that does not get knocked down by the TE, and a free safety that can read a QB from the deep zone, for starters.
 
I have come to realize that we who no longer play the game, will analyze it to death. The numbers help to quantify the performance, but this game can be summarized on a chalk board in the time it takes to drink a Gatorade and eat a few orange halves. The difference a coach like Muschamp makes is not so much about the scheme or even the numbers. Its the fire the guy has for the game. I suspect that fire was in every coach mentioned on this thread at one time or another. It probably gets harder each year one is removed from actually strapping it on, to feel that fire, but there is no mistaking the fact that this guy is still feeling it. The players see and feel that and it inspires them; it is something they share with their coach, and it makes them want to do well for him. It is the art vs. the science, if you will. I am confident that this guy will inspire his players, and play the ones who bring it every play. If this defense underperforms, he will take it very personaly. That is what I like about him.
 
people need to stop complaining about the GD "predictable" offense. The GD "predictable" offense has been the top 2 offense in the nation during the reign of GD and that is with a less than stellar defense...
 
(1) Thanks, gkp - that is a good point regarding the use of the safeties in the Horns' defense.

We've tried several different approaches to field a "balanced" defense (particularly against the Spread offenses), and it will be interesting to see what Will Muschamp comes up with -- in the effort to defend effectively against "both" the run and the pass -- this Fall.

(2) Statalyzer - appreciate your point, and it may help to narrow the issue.

What do you believe would be the best approach for the 2008 Horns to take -- in terms of our defensive philosophy -- to defend effectively against "both" the run and the pass?

And, conversely, what thoughts do you have that would improve the Horns' predictable one-man running game (that we've seen so far with a "passing QB" under GD) to the extent that our offense could help the Texas defense win a Conference title this Fall?

It is a team sport, and it seems fair to suggest that assigning to the Texas defense the sole blame for our losses in the past two football seasons is not a basic premise that is likely to lead to a solution for the problems encountered by the 2006 and 2007 Horns.

What are your suggestions for improving the status-quo from the Horns' past two football seasons (i.e., the 10-3 results with no Conference titles and no participation in BCS-level postseason games) with the 2008 Horns?

Hook 'em.
cow.gif
 
The defensive success lies squarely on the backs of several untested young men in the secondary.

As for the offense, one back, two back, half back, quarter back.... it all lays at the feet of Coach McWhorter. No blocking, no offense. The o-line is the key. The QB should only run when he wants to, not because he always has to. A team does not have to have a "dual threat" QB to be successful running the ball- this is why play-action was invented. But first of all, you have to have blocking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top